home

David Shuster Gets MSNBC 6pm Show

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:19:20 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

MSNBC's David Shuster will get his own show at 6:00 pm ET, now that David Gregroy has Meet the Press.

Like Jane at Firedoglake, I like Shuster and think he's a good reporter. He was terrific during the Scooter Libby trial.

Congrats, David. And thank you MSNBC for providing a non-conservative evening lineup. With David, Keith and Rachel, we've now got a real choice.

< Legal Realism Again | Caroline Kennedy to Seek NY Senate Seat >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    David Shuster Gets MSNBC 6pm Show | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I don't like him. I think he is a sexist (5.00 / 12) (#1)
    by hairspray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:26:51 PM EST
    as demonstrated by his attacks on Hillary in the primaries.  Since I don't watch MSNBC it hardly matters what I say.

    Of "pimping out Chelsea" fame (5.00 / 10) (#2)
    by Amiss on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:29:22 PM EST
    Mr. Shuster drew criticism in February when he asked whether Chelsea Clinton had been "pimped out" during her mother's presidential campaign.

    I don't watch MSNBC anymore, now that he has been added at 6, I for certain won't be in the forseeable future.

    Yeah MSNBC is not my cuppa tea (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:34:11 PM EST
    Rachel Maddow is a Keith O wanna-be.  David was awesome during the Libby scandal.  But he did lose me with hit Chelsea remark. David Gregory dancing around and "rapping" with Karl Rove is disgusting beyond disgusting. During the primaries, MSNBC jumped the Obama shark and not in a good way.

    I'll just stick to my reading my news haunts online.   I long for the days of Walter Cronkite and Frank Reynolds.  

    Maddow (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Nasarius on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 02:59:30 PM EST
    She's imperfect and probably a bit annoying if you watch every day, and I have no idea what her views were during the primaries, but comparing her to Olbermann is unfair. Of all the people with cable news shows, she's easily the smartest, funniest and most informative. She's definitely not a pompous windbag with an inflated ego and outrage overload a la Olbermann/O'Reilly.

    Oh, and her (podcastable) radio show is great.

    Parent

    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by daring grace on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 03:26:15 PM EST
    When she used to sit on those pundit panels on Gregory's Race to White House it offered such a contrast with not only the other pundits there but all pundits trotted out on all cable channels.

    Parent
    she was an extreme clinton-basher (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by sallywally on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:51:44 PM EST
    with the best of them. snarky and made a joke of hillary and bill. no pretense of objectivity, just part of the frat party.

    i loved her before but watch her gingerly and intermittently now. i can't watch olbermann at all.

    schuster isn't likely to get me watching either.

    how did that group treat the news of clinton as sos? i couldn't bear to watch.

    Parent

    I Couldn't Say (none / 0) (#100)
    by daring grace on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 04:15:23 PM EST
    because I rarely watch any politics programs any more. I mostly watched before to find out how the race was going.

    I like Maddow, but not enough to watch even her program more than a few moments at a time. It's just my aversion to the culture of tv's presentation of 'news' and opinion.

    Parent

    I listen to her on XM (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 03:56:05 PM EST
    and Air America on line and have always liked her. No need to watch her on the TV and give MSNBC my patronage.

    Parent
    I just have to wonder why they switched to (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:03:53 PM EST
    loving Obama after they let Bush fondle them for so long.   What is in it for them?

    Parent
    Young male demographic ratings (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by ruffian on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:07:20 PM EST
    That is all they are really interested in.  Next time young men fall for a pol, they will switch.

    Parent
    quite possible. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:13:13 PM EST
    Something primordial was at work. I tend to see the press as formers of opinion rather than followers though.   The electorate do their bidding generally and not the other way around.

    Parent
    Too true. (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Fabian on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:17:37 PM EST
    One post about the Jessica Alba airbrushing, women reported becoming "invisible" to men after reaching a certain age - often as young as their 30s.  Hillary Clinton just doesn't push the buttons for men the way Obama does.

    This implies something rather disturbing about the average male psyche.  Let's ask Matthews - he seems to be the poster boy for reptilian thinking.  (human > monkey > reptile)

    Parent

    the corporations picked their guy (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:22:20 PM EST
    in 200 and 2004 it was bush.  In 2008, it was Obama.  That along with the DC presses disdain for the Clintons (who they know are smarter and better human beings and not at all jaded enough for DC)who just aren't "their kind of people darling" was what did it.
    And you know they all have to follow the leaders, otherwise they might not get invited to all the right cocktail parties.  
    In addition, everyone had to prove how cool they were by supporting the cool black guy.

    Parent
    Would Racism Spoilt the Love? (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by BDB on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:35:09 PM EST
    Bigotry is bigorty, no?  

    Now that is an attitude... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 02:26:48 PM EST
    to aspire too...well said.

    Parent
    A suspension with pay (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 02:29:36 PM EST
    sounded like a vacation to me.

    MSNBC does not get to sell me.  I.e., if you watch it, you are being sold to advertisers by MSNBC.

    And the demographic profile of MSNBC's audience is not company I want to keep.  Your mileage varies.

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#24)
    by bluegal on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 03:42:47 PM EST
    He is forever tainted with that comment. Notice that the Times mentioned his suspension. I think that is punishment enough to forever have people write that you were associated with stating that Chelsea was being "pimped out."

    He hasn't made that same mistake since.

    Parent

    Self censoring doesn't mean "changed". (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 03:51:25 PM EST


    Parent
    Look (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by bluegal on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 03:55:44 PM EST
    I seriously doubt that the man is a sexist.  Usually there is a pattern self-censoring or not (see Matthews, Chris).  There were ALOT of things said during the primaries that I know some people wish they had never said and I think he is one of them.

    Parent
    This isn't about who's the bigger sexist (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:19:56 PM EST
    (see Matthews, Chris) or who's better about censoring or what they wish they could take back now that it's over to protect their reputations.

    I didn't see him speaking out about his co-workers sexist behavior at any point during the primaries (before I quit watching all together). Silence equaled approval. There were daily opportunities for him to do the right thing. Until he proves otherwise, he approves of what they were/are saying and has engaged directly in the same behavior.

    Parent

    Oh lord (2.33 / 3) (#56)
    by bluegal on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:37:20 PM EST
    This isn't about who is the biggest sexist this about who is qualified and deserves the job or not.  By the standards that many of the commenters have set here, every person that makes one mistake and apologizes for it deserves to be crucified. It is absurd and does nothing to combat true sexism in the media and elsewhere.

    What did you want him to say? He's not a commentator he is a journalist which is one of the reasons why his comment about Chelsea was so inappropriate.

    Again, for all the nagging about sexism(!) how about you guys channel your obvious bitterness over the primaries towards some actual activism.  It's time to move on. The man deserves the job he is getting. Sheesh.

    Parent

    You're funny (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:58:15 PM EST
    It's not about bitterness or the primaries themselves. You should get a clue. It's about what he says and it IS about sexism and our unwillingness to dismiss it as nothing or accept it.

    You think getting his own show is what he "deserves"? Well, I think that "is absurd and does nothing to combat true sexism in the media and elsewhere."

    Parent

    the only thing more obnoxious (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:04:49 PM EST
    than a sexist comment from a man is one from a woman.  I have rated you accordingly.

    Parent
    My bitterness about sexism (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 08:26:12 AM EST
    comes from being a woman, and being touched and fondled uninvited, and having my gender be the top topic in most work situations I have ever been in, really this list is just too long to continue.  I was born with a dominant personality but in this sexist world that is a woman who doesn't know her place or who needs to be taught her place.  If I had been born a man though it would have opened doors instead of only mouths.

    Parent
    Wishing he never had said it (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:23:39 PM EST
    because it got him in trouble is hardly evidence sufficient to counter the sexism of his comment.

    And his apology was insincere, only given when he was ordered to do so -- and it was not to the young woman he called a whore, nor to her parents he called pimps.  If he truly is not sexist, would he not have seen the need to apologize to them?

    Otherwise, if he's not sexist, he's just generally insensitive and has bad manners.  If so, then he won't last long on this show.  After all, that was the second time he had to apologize on the air -- and the other time was an insult to a woman, too.

    No doubt entirely coincidentally?  Well, maybe he'll be fine if he does a news show that never has news about nor interviews with women.  Sounds like just the thing for MSNBC.

    Parent

    Your comment makes no sense (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:26:17 PM EST
    whatsoever---especially the aside about self-censoring.
    Shuster has a long history of sexist remarks, and
    he's been a Clinton-hating, fact-hating hack since the 90s.
    What is your point?

    Parent
    Source? (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by bluegal on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:38:06 PM EST
    Please cite his past sexist remarks. I'm serious because I think that calling someone a racist or sexist are pretty strong charges.

    Parent
    what is this? Dkos? (4.40 / 5) (#73)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:08:52 PM EST
    if you really need proof that what the person said is true, try google.
    He is indeed a snotty little ankle biter of the sexist kind.  He is one of those guys who never got over the fact that a penis no longer entitled him to be president of his class when there were smarter harding working people who happened to have girl parts in that job.  

    Parent
    You need to quit p1mping that (3.50 / 2) (#59)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:40:45 PM EST
    ingenue routine. It's gotten old.

    Parent
    What ingenuine routine? (1.75 / 4) (#64)
    by bluegal on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:04:51 PM EST
    Do you know me? I as a black person am not entirely convinced that sexism  truly exists. Why? Because if someone is going to discriminate against me it's going to probably be because of my race and not my sex.

    So you can call my comments an "routine" and as far as I'm concerned you are still an angry white person about the primaries.

    Get over it.

    Parent

    Ummm (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by CST on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:19:04 PM EST
    The existence of racism does not negate the existence of sexism.

    And I'm not angry about any primaries.

    Parent

    There is no racism (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:23:50 PM EST
    and I say that as a white woman who knows when she's discriminated against it's sexism  ;)

    Parent
    well, now I know what kind of commenter (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:07:37 PM EST
    you are----the kind who is completely unable to make meaningful distinctions.
    have a nice day.

    Parent
    I don't know you (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:00:21 PM EST
    but your words reflect that of a closed minded conservative....the kind that says/thinks things like "if it does not affect me, it must not exist or be important."  How sad for us all.  We don't need those kinds of thinkers regardless of race or gender.

    Parent
    Shirley Chisolm, (3.50 / 4) (#75)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:13:40 PM EST
    disagreed with you.  She knew that being a woman was a much harder social/political power disability than being Black.  That's a fact backed up by stats whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

    Parent
    You aren't familiar (none / 0) (#97)
    by bluegal on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:22:00 AM EST
    with Chisholm then. It's a mistake that many non-women of color make about her views. Take some time to do some research on her.

    Parent
    Do you ever provide one scintilla of (none / 0) (#99)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 03:05:47 PM EST
    evidence for any of your claims? As far as I can tell, the answer is no, and you pretty clearly make up sh*T on the spot to support your preconceptions.

    Parent
    so if he had said that Obama was (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:01:40 PM EST
    pimping out his daughters and followed that with one nasty little attack on Obama after another, bygones would be bygones?  I doubt it.

    Parent
    Okay, let's agree at a chance (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:49:44 PM EST
    at redemption.  One chance.  And he had his, after insulting a Congresswoman and having to apologize then.  But he wasn't "redeemed," he didn't learn from it, because he went on to call the Clintons pimps and, therefore, their daughter a whore.

    And you want him to get ANOTHER chance at "redemption"?  Or what, two more chances?  Three?  Just how much redemption are we supposed to have to endure -- while he denigrates more than half of us with his repeated inability to deal with women well?

    Parent

    That is your interpretation... (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 08:39:34 PM EST
    of his remarks, other interpretations may differ Cream.  

    We're all free to not watch his show or the network who airs it...and with all the pikers with controversy-tainment talk shows on the air,  to worry about Schuster simply reeks of vengeance for interpreted offense towards the Clintons.

    I hope this doesn't put me on your list:)

    Parent

    Bwwwaaahhh. MY interpretation? (1.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 08:55:30 PM EST
    Read the comments here; I'm hardly alone in the interpretation of the word pimp, for pity's sake.  Or gosh, I guess it could be construed that he really meant it as a compliment to the Clintons, including Chelsea.

    And sure, he wasn't playing gotcha for rating in his game with Congresswoman Blackburn -- he was performing a public service, that great guy David Schuster.

    Really, kdog, for this lack of research on your part or just pretzelification beyond belief, you would not be worthy of a place on any list of mine.

    Parent

    I didn't mean to imply just your.... (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:18:54 PM EST
    interpretation. Though even amongst those that agree there are variations.  Some think it was offensive, but not necessarily sexist.  Some think offensive and sexist.  Some think just poor taste for television.  Who is right?  Open to interpretation.

    People find "pimp" or any word/phrase offensive or not to varying degrees.  In and out of context.  It's not black and white.  If those that disagree are unredeemable than I don't know what we do.

    Now if Schuster harassed a subordinate, paid his male hairstylist more than his female hairstylist...then I'd be right there with you sister, fire the pr*ck. But absent that I can't see why he can't join the hallowed ranks of Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, and Greta Van Susteren.  It's not fu*ckin' journalism anyway.

    Parent

    If he'd said similar things (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:37:56 PM EST
    about Obama's kids, he wouldn't have a job as janitor at MSNBC. No WAY would he have a lead job.

    Parent
    Backwards, I think. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by huzzlewhat on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 04:50:05 PM EST
    I personally have no problem with the idea that someone can redeem themselves for past bad actions -- I'm actually a big believer in it.

    What's frustrating for me (speaking only for myself) in this case -- and it's exactly the same thing with Favreau -- is that I feel as though too many people are putting the cart before the horse when it comes to redemption. It seems as though people are saying, "Yes, he's behaved  badly, but let's give him this plum assignment/job/not fire him/not punish him, etc., because he can be redeemed."  Whereas I think the offenders should suffer the consequences for their bad behavior first ... what motivation would they, or anyone else, have to change their behavior, otherwise? Or, even understand that behavior is wrong?  

    Why do we give a pass like this to sexist behavior and language? So many people seem to fall back on arguments that say, essentially, "Yes, he said something bad, but he's not a bad person, really, why punish him?" And that's too close, to my mind, to saying that his offense wasn't really important or significant... or even that it wasn't a real offense at all. This has to change if we're going to have any real hope of feminism winning back any of the ground we've so obviously lost. At this point, to my mind, the burden of proof should be on Schuster and Favreau that they deserve anything other than penalty. They should not receive actual rewards in terms of power, prestige, and money until they have redeemed themselves -- exactly the opposite from receiving such rewards in hopes that they might redeem themselves.

    Parent

    shuster is CDS (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by sancho on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:37:06 PM EST
    incarnated. he made his name on the bill clinton impeachment and then became a celebrated martyr to hillary's so-called ambition. i'm not watching him.

    Dobbs is a blowhard. So is Olbermann. (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by tigercourse on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:48:08 PM EST
    Matthews is an idiot and Maddow was once pretty brilliant but is becoming corrupted by MSNBC. I don't really see the point in watching any of them. I'd suggest you watch Cash Cab on Discovery at 6 P.M.

    I love Cash cab (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:16:12 PM EST
    and you can learn stuff too.  ;)  Really, so much more useful than pundits.

    Parent
    Allright!!! Another reason to boycott MSNBC. (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by Angel on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 01:52:44 PM EST
    They have truly become the "sexist station to watch."  Tweety, Keith, and David.  All they need now is to hire Josh Marshall as a regular guest....

    One bad trait does not spoil? (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 02:05:09 PM EST
    I would say unless he has corrected that trait (no, an apology is not a correction of a sexist), it does spoil. Seems the election brought out some true colors over on MSNBC. Support it if you wish, but I opted out. And will continue to do so. I refuse to support sexism.

    Shuster got the death penalty (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:59:07 PM EST
    (figuratively speaking) when one thinks of the consequences to Jon Favreau.

    Parent
    What Obama could/should have (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:56:37 PM EST
    sd. re Favreau:

    "I was disappointed to read the comments attributed to Steve Williams about Phil Mickelson, a player that I respect," Woods said in a statement. "It was inappropriate. The matter has been discussed and dealt with."
     [AP.]

    Parent
    Dalton, that was the second time (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:41:12 PM EST
    that he had to apologize on the air, after comments to or about a woman.

    Just because you missed the first one doesn't mean it didn't happen.  You say if he does it twice, then he ought to be out?

    Then -- he ought to be out.  Instead, he's promoted to his own show.  Discuss.

    Parent

    Again (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 09:51:27 AM EST
    I give you leeway because you're young, so you haven't seen real journalism practiced in this country -- including how quickly real journalistic enterprises used to show such idiots the door.

    I can only hope for your sake and that of my children your age that you will get to see the resurgence of real journalism and journalists someday.  Then you'll see.

    But do be aware that in most workplaces, unlike MSNBC, you get only one chance to be an idiot before it's out the door. . . .

    Parent

    Rachel Maddow (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 02:10:21 PM EST
    Rachel is the only one I could watch everyday.  

    He's not a good reporter (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by Exeter on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 02:13:06 PM EST
    He's a fine televised talk radio host and I'm sure he will be fine in that role at MSNBC, but he's not a good reporter. A good reporter would never fill in  as host of the Ed Shultz Show or say that Hillary was "pimping out" Chelsea.

    I did like his reporting of (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 02:50:09 PM EST
    the Valerie Plame case.  However, his blatant sexism turned me off and the fact that his co anchors were more concerned about him and thus created a martyr scenario, made it worse.  Sadly it seemed like Mr. Shuster was more interested in impressing the misogynists at NBC than doing his job.

    I honestly have not been able to sit through a KO show since the primaries.  Rachel Maddow has disappointed me greatly.  Her lack of passion, compassion or empathy for they way female politicians have been treated bugs me.  Maybe I should understand that she HAS to pander to the male dominated pundit biz so being soft on sexism and comfortable with Uncle Pat as a regular is her job.  But it bugs me.

    I have actually come to like Pat (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:25:29 PM EST
    even though I rarely agree with him.  I prefer him to many of the pundits on the left.  He and Scarborough at least try to be somewhat populist and   are less goo goo eyed than the pundits on the left who I am supposed to like.

    Parent
    One odd trait (none / 0) (#94)
    by andrys on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 09:31:39 AM EST
    There are odd things I notice when watching people who pundit(ize) and one example is that when Howard Dean is interviewed, his neck never moves.  It's rigid and it worries me about flexibility in the mind.  However, maybe there's a physical reason, so that's possibly unfair.

      With Shuster, the way he uses his mouth (which I can't avoid watching when he's heading a broadcast) is a movement which always reminds me of a ventriloquist's act in that it looks as if vowels cause the mouth to move almost to the ears in a way I can't help but notice.  That may seem very shallow (and likely is), but I've never watched him without noticing that his speech movements are highly exaggerated!  So I think of how that might reflect something in his thinking.

      Liked him in the Libby/Plame case though.  He was focused and fearless and explained his doubts very well.  I haven't been able to enjoy his stiffness otherwise though.  As an interviewee he was interesting, but as a host, he is sometimes almost robotic except when he shows anger.  But I must say I can watch his show because his thoughts are pretty substantial while I can hardly watch more than 5 minutes of Olbermann's because he only allows yes-people on - only people who agree with him.  And his news show is mainly about him.

     

    Parent

    And the rewards just keep on coming, (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 03:12:55 PM EST
    don't they?  

    I am hard-pressed to understand exactly how anyone expects to see an end to bigotry - of any kind - when those who have used the microphone and the airwaves to demonstrate - repeatedly - that they just don't get it, who wink-wink and nudge-nudge their way through the occasional apology - are given contracts and time slots that not only handsomely remunerate them, but make it clear once and for all that nothing they can say can be so bad that it can't be exploited for ratings or money.

    The choice I've made is not to waste my time watching and listening to people whose real agenda has nothing to do with informing the public or exposing the government's lies, but instead seems to be focused on doing whatever it takes to be in with the In Crowd of political movers and shakers - and the heck with the little people who stand to be most negatively affected by their negligence.

    Yes, Shuster did some excellent work on the Libby case and trial, and maybe I'm supposed to give him a chance to prove that the Shuster who tossed off the crass comment about Clinton was an aberration, but something tells me I can live a long time before not watching David Shuster is going to have any negative affect on me, so I think I will pass.

    Shuster was mainly symptomatic. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:06:07 PM EST
    There will be PhD's in gender studies about the election coverage treatment of Clinton and possibly even Palin.

    Matthews in his own primitive knuckle dragging way suggested that is was primeval macho culture at work...and he was right (even though he was part of it too)

    Parent

    Great guy (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by bluegal on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 03:40:26 PM EST
    Yes, his comment about Chelsea Clinton was a bit off but he has been a very solid reporter and actually challenges his guests instead of letting them get away with all sorts of crap. I personally would have liked to see him take over Hardball but this will do.

    Also, I don't think that comment makes him a sexist. He made an error and suffered the consequences.

    I am sorry Bluegal (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Amiss on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 03:48:29 PM EST
    but
    He made an error and suffered the consequences.
    2 weeks off with pay are not "consequences" in my book. Of course YMMV.


    Parent
    So throw your shoes at him. (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:00:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Way to focalize. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:47:57 PM EST


    Parent
    I made this point above (none / 0) (#30)
    by bluegal on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 03:58:18 PM EST
    Notice how he will forever be attached to that comment.  A good journalist will always have an asterisk by his name.  Don't you think that is enough?

    For all the anger directed at Shuster couldn't this be channeled towards a repeat offender such as Chris Matthews?

    I must admit for all the cries of the revival of the "feminst movement," I would have thought there would have been more of outcry over the fact that NBC is willing to renew Chris Matthews contract.

    Parent

    He was also Foxs frontman... (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:07:15 PM EST
    ...for bashing Gore and exploiting Lewinsky.  You have a short memory.

    Parent
    There is plenty of anger left for Tweety too (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by ruffian on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:08:46 PM EST
    Don't worry about that.  Wait until he tries a Senate run and see what happens.

    Parent
    Perhaps we are not discussing (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:12:35 PM EST
    Tweety because the thread isn't about him getting a new show?

    I think many of us have made our views of Tweety, his sexism and his tingling leg quite well known.

    Parent

    He openly discussed... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Salo on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:15:33 PM EST
    ...the possibility that the voters would accept a black president before they accepted a female president. He linked it to the fact that the civil war and black emancipation preceded the expansion of the franchise to women by 50 odd years.

    He's actually a candid commentator at times.

    Parent

    Of course, he was incorrect in that (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:51:05 PM EST
    since the 14th and 15th Amendments that freed African Americans and gave the male ones the vote really only fully freed some and only gave the vote to some in some states.  De facto slavery with sharecropping and tenant farming, Jim Crow laws,  and denial of voting rights to African Americans in all states did not come until LBJ's (as Clinton said) Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    If we are going to go by the measure of voting rights in some states, some women had voting rights in 1869, a year after the 14th and 15th Amendments.  

    So then, we'll have a woman president in 2010, Tweety?  

    Or if we're going to go by the measure of when all women really could vote, that was 1923 -- after the last two recalcitrant states in the South were forced to recognize the 19th Amendment.  But not until 1965 could all African Americans vote.  

    So then, we ought to have had a woman president 42 years ago, Tweety.

    I really hate how poorly history is transmitted -- and confused, apples equated with oranges -- by the tv types.

    Parent

    Schuster IS a repeat offender (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:29:22 PM EST
    just because you are not aware of that fact doesn't negate it.

    Parent
    ooooo, you got us (2.00 / 0) (#83)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:36:50 PM EST
    silly women that we are... could it be that calling tweety out for his sexism is like calling out Hitler for his hatred of Jews? What would be the point of beating that dead horse again?

    Parent
    Wow. I thought this post was (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by rooge04 on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:47:47 PM EST
    sarcastic at first.

    MSNBC? They are disgusting.  The whole network is simply the left equivalent of Fox News. And BOTH of them are full of terrible journalists, Maddow included, who see the truth and objectivity as something they don't need to worry about when reporting on politics.

    Maddow mis-informs all the time. Shuster is a sexist and a CDS sufferer.  Nevermind Olbermann and his Clinton-hate.  Remember how Hillary wanted Obama assassinated?

    LOL.  

    Maddow was a smart, fun interviewee (none / 0) (#95)
    by andrys on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 09:39:31 AM EST
    Now she apparently thinks she must be 150% personality and is full of cutesy mannerisms lately that drive me to another channel.  All that talking to the camera as if it were a close friend and making sport of much while laughing AT things that people think or say is just not something I like to watch.

      Like Shuster, she was an excellent panel member but I'd like a news host to concentrate on the news.  Maddow even constricts her throat and raises her pitch maybe because she thinks we won't like just reporting the news with not quite so much personality.  It's fatiguing.  So I can't watch MSNBC much anymore, though I think she's smart.  But her biases really get in the way of reporting.  

      She's still a good interviewer though.

    Parent

    I rarely watch commercial cable ... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:17:16 PM EST
    news.  So I could care less.

    But it's nice to see that selling out still pays off.

    ;)

    Who would I want on cable? (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Fabian on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:30:17 PM EST
    No one.  Real journalism rarely happens on cable, unless you count cspan.  I'd rather spend some money upgrading public radio and television that waste any talent on soundbite news.

    journalist & journalism (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Fabian on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 02:22:13 AM EST
    and commercial television aren't compatible.

    You should ask: Who should be running cable news?

    Parent

    Aaron Brown n/t (none / 0) (#98)
    by NYShooter on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 11:25:36 AM EST


    Parent
    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:37:59 PM EST
    "Congrats, David. And thank you MSNBC for providing a non-conservative evening lineup. With David, Keith and Rachel, we've now got a real choice."
    Why I so often lurk on this site.  :)
    To be clear; (none / 0) (#62)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:51:25 PM EST
    As if that is the objective of a "news" organization....

    Parent
    There are a few on public TV (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:32:55 PM EST
    that I wouldn't mind giving a chance.  Frankly nothing remotely journalistic happens on cable so I doubt it would start now.

    no name calling please (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 02:13:47 PM EST
    express your opinion without personal attacks and name-calling. It's not allowed.

    If he turns out to be (none / 0) (#22)
    by Fabian on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 03:35:19 PM EST
    the next Bill Moyers, I'll tune in.  If not, no great loss.

    So (none / 0) (#25)
    by lilburro on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 03:47:29 PM EST
    since it looks like I'm going to be working 40+ hours a week til I am 90 years old, I will probably never catch his show in full!

    I hope his show is decent.  I don't care much for MSNBC's programming, and while I do think Maddow is smart and has fairly good guests, I find her show more or less useless to me.  She spends a lot of time recapping what many of us have already seen on the Internet.  I don't want to watch a talk show based around viral Youtube clips.  So I hope that's not what Shuster does, and I don't think it will be.

    I think the thing I dislike so about (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:14:07 PM EST
    both Olbermann and Maddow is how hard they always seem to be working to make sure everyone knows how much smarter and more clever they think they are than anyone else; it's a form of intellectual bullying that is also very self-congratulatory.  Ugh.

    David Shuster revealed something about himself that makes me take what he says and reports with a pretty big grain of salt.  And after giving him a paid vacation, MSNBC has now rewarded him with a promotion.

    The network may think that makes sense, but I don't.


    Parent

    Anne! (none / 0) (#44)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:27:13 PM EST
    You've been missed at that other board that went by the way -- so we've been trying to find you.  How best can we communicate to get you the new URL to the resurrected TP?

    Parent
    I find (none / 0) (#45)
    by jb64 on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:39:30 PM EST
    most cable news to be extremely exhausting. A lot of tempest in the teapot, with very little reporting of facts, and hours and hours of "analysis" and speculation. Frankly, its mind-numbing.  MSNBC has become the Fox of the left, which I am quite sure they are proud, but IMO did we really need another Fox, regardless of the ideological spin? Shuster is no better or worse than can be expected at this point.

    Parent
    MSNBC is FOX for the dumberer crowd. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 04:48:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Exhausting? Annoying! (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Fabian on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:18:09 PM EST
    I listen to NPR and occasionally catch PBS.  Cable news is just plain annoying - too little content, too many commercials, way too much speculation.  

    Glenn Greenwald did both Maddow and Moyers(go Glenn!) and compares the two.  It doesn't matter how great the interviewer is on commercial television, there's just not enough time to do much but cover some bullet points.  That's the best case scenario.  The average is far worse and the worst case scenario is 9/11 coverage - endless breathless speculation.

    Parent

    I caught the (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by NYShooter on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:40:09 PM EST
    Moyers/Greenwald interview on PBS....excellent!

    I particularly enjoyed Greenwald, aware of the time constraints on TV, speaking succinctly, intelligently, informatively, and most of all, briefly.

    On his blog space at Salon, I rarely get to finish his articles because, being a lawyer, I guess, he goes over the same point a thousand different ways. I find myself yelling," I got i! I got it! Pleeeese move on."

    LOL.....Small critique for a great analyst and reporter.


    Parent

    I'm confident Mr. Shuster has some (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:00:40 PM EST
    redeeming qualities.  After all, he is a Univ. of Michigan graduate.

    He shares a last name ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:19:35 PM EST
    with one of the co-creators of Superman.  Other than that ...


    Parent
    Segue: (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:57:36 PM EST
    my mother was born in Metropolis, IL.

    Parent
    David Shuster Gets MSNBC 6pm Show | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment